Democrats lead by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Wednesday rolled out their most sweeping assault weapons ban proposal since 1994.

The planned Assault Weapon Ban of 2019 targets the sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of “military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines,” as defined by the California Democrat and her co-sponsors, Senators Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

“This past year, we’ve seen Americans rise up and demand Congress change our gun laws. Banning assault weapons would save lives,” said Murphy, who in the past has spoken out against what he termed “the imaginary 2nd Amendment.”

Besides outlawing 205 gun models by name — Feinstein’s original 1994 ban only listed around 20 specific models — the proposal would also define an “assault weapon” as a semi-automatic with a detachable magazine that included one of a list of cosmetic features that are deemed “military characteristics” such as a threaded barrel, pistol grip or folding stock. This is less lenient than the previous ban which allowed a “features test” that included two such characteristics.

In addition, the measure would expand federal law to ban adjustable stocks, Thordsen-style stocks such as used in “featureless rifles” marketed in states like California, “assault pistols” that weight more than 50-ounces when unloaded, and popular pistol stabilizing braces that have become widespread in recent years. Detachable magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds would be prohibited from transfer and guns grandfathered when the ban takes effect would be required to be locked up when not in use. A background check would be mandatory for future sale or gifting of grandfathered guns, even between two private parties.

Joining Feinstein in her effort to “get these weapons of war off our streets,” are at least 25 other Dems in the Senate who have promised to sign on to the legislation. However, with Republicans in charge of the chamber, it is unlikely the measure will make it out of committee without bipartisan support.

Meanwhile, in the now-Democrat controlled House, Rhode Island U.S. Rep. David Cicilline has been elevated to a leadership position in that body and has since 2011 backed a series of bans on semi-automatics similar to Feinstein’s latest attempt.

********************************************************

"we've gotta roll with the punches, learn to play all of our hunchesMaking the best of what ever comes our wayForget that blind ambition and learn to trust your intuitionPlowing straight ahead come what mayAnd theres a cowboy in the jungle"Jimmy Buffet

Feinstein can munch my boybox, I'd wish her into the cornfield, but knowing California, they'd bring someone twice as nutty to replace her. Patty Murray too. That whole list of fuckheads can take a flying leap, but those two in particular, Feinstein for being a ringleader, and Murray because she's from here.

quote:

Originally posted by Will938:If you don't become a screen writer for comedy movies, then you're an asshole.

I can not see any Assault Weapon ban having merit any longer. There are just too many out there. To my knowledge even in the liberal bastions of NY & CT where they have commanded the serfs to register said weapons compliance is less than 20%. It's not like the time of Clinton. There are just too many on the street now. Plus more people actually die by hammer than rife in the USA. Should we put the hammers behind gates at Home Depot and have a backround check?

Why are we encouraged not to judge all Muslims by the lunatics BUT are encouraged to judge all gun owners by the very few lunatics? Ironic?

What gets me about coming to these forums and reading the comments is the general lack of supposed supporters of the 2nd to recognize the threat.You can talk about it, post comments, and make snide remarks, but this is a very serious issue, for which I see just a handful of people willing to fight the legitimate fight. The 2nd Amend has 27 words in it, and to my knowledge all the so-called pro-2nd organizations focus on the last 14 words, and ignore the critical first 13 words.According to those who debated and ratified the Constitution, the 2nd was placed to make sure that government could not disarm the People, or in their words Militia. Where is Militia? Well its something else we've allowed government to take from our authority without a change in the Constitution. Why? We've fallen for the tripe that we get from the NRA, and GOA whose only concern seems to be more donations.“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” - Carl Sagan

Just to add something. We here the term "well regulated". The antis want you to believe that means regulated by the government as by law. This is NOT TRUE. The term means well trained in the use and care of tools of the Militia and that includes firearms. I fear so many good people have not been properly educated concerning the English language that they will and do accept anything a liar will tell them. If you think that I am not telling the truth just look at some of their social media postings. It is sad that all most kids that attend a public school to receive a high school diploma is show up. That you George Bush.

Originally posted by black1970:Just to add something. We here the term "well regulated". The antis want you to believe that means regulated by the government as by law. This is NOT TRUE. The term means well trained in the use and care of tools of the Militia and that includes firearms. I fear so many good people have not been properly educated concerning the English language that they will and do accept anything a liar will tell them. If you think that I am not telling the truth just look at some of their social media postings. It is sad that all most kids that attend a public school to receive a high school diploma is show up. That you George Bush.

I have to say that you are spot on, and history proves you out.

The Founders hoped that we would maintain "A well regulated Militia" so that We the People could ultimately control government and "officials" who wanted to destroy our form of freedom and liberty.

People say gun control is ok because no right is absolute. They will commonly bring up the fact that it's illegal to shout "FIRE!" in a theater.

What they fail to think about is that it's not illegal to use the word fire. Or to even shout "FIRE!" It's merely a restriction because it could cause a panic and thus injury.

Soooooooooo, I'd argue that the Supreme's should rule similarly. Is it illegal to buy and own a full auto machine gun? No, of course not. No law banning a specific word from ever being used would survive judicial scrutiny, so why would any law that effectively bans ever owning a specific gun survive the same scrutiny.

Perhaps a law that says a full auto machine gun cannot be used at a public range could survive scrutiny (I'm not saying it would or should, I'm just drawing the parallel to the public shouting of fire), but certainly we can still own it.

Perhaps a law that says you can't carry a 30 round magazine in public, but certainly you can still own it.

I'd love to see SCOTUS take this same approach and stop all this out right ban nonsense.

I have thought of several situations where it is legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

1) If you are an actor and the script calls for you to shout Fire.

2) If there is a fire in a crowded theater.

3) If the audience has been instructed that a fire drill is about to take place and everyone is to exit the building in a controlled manner.

4) If a person knows that something is about to happen in that theater the results of which are worse than the possible chaos of a panicked crowd exiting (i.e.a BG is about to set off an explosive, or deadly gas or attempt to assassinate someone, etc.)

This doesn't "prove" that 2A is correct or anything like that, but it just always irks me when someone starts from the basis of "Free speech is fine but it's still illegal to shout Fire in a crowded theater." No, it's not. The wrongness of that act comes from the improper use of the word Fire; not from having the word Fire in one's arsenal of words.